On behalf of the Board of Directors of Sacramento County Retired Employees Association we welcome you to your website.

This website was developed for our members and other interested parties and has been designed to give easy access to resources and information about activities offered by our Association. We hope
you will find the site useful and easy to navigate.

The objective of this website is to enhance our communication with members. We want to hear from you and invite your comments and suggestions at any time.

Many Sacramento County retirees are enrolled in the County Medical and Dental Benefit Plans. If you have questions about your County Benefit Plan, contact the County Benefits Office by clicking on the link below.

August 2015 Update

New State-wide Initiative is an All Out Attack on Public Pensions!

By Mike DeBord

The new State-wide “initiative” (that will soon be circulating around the State gathering petition signatures) will try and close every single State and local government defined benefit retirement plan to new employees! The initiative, titled “Public Employees. Pension and Retiree Healthcare Benefits” would apply to all cities and counties, school districts, special districts, boards, commissions, universities and State government. If the proponents of this initiative get sufficient signatures, it will be on the November 8, 2016 General Election ballot as an amendment to the State Constitution.

The proponents of this initiative submitted their proposal to the State Attorney General who is responsible for writing the “Title and Summary” for all initiatives submitted. The Attorney General says in their Summary of this initiative, that the proposal would

eliminate Constitutional protections for vested pension and retiree healthcare benefits for current employees, including those working in K-12 schools, higher education, hospitals, and police protection, for future work performed.

add initiative and referendum powers to the Constitution (so voters could be responsible) for determining public employee compensation and retirement benefits.

wouldbar government employers from enrolling new employees in “defined benefit” plans, or paying more than one-half cost of new employee’s retirement benefits, or enhancing retirement benefits, unless specifically approved by the voters.

This initiative would require thousands of new ballot measures at taxpayer cost and close defined benefit retirement plans to new employees even though they have the lowest fees and highest investment returns compared to other types of plans such as 401(k)’s.

This Initiative is the most serious threat to public pensions ever put forth in California! It creates very burdensome and expensive barriers for local government to continue pensions for their new employees. It also affects existing workers and can affect current retirees as existing retirement plans are closed to new employees.

We need your help to try and defeat this initiative which would undermine all public sector workers, including teachers, nurses, police and firefighters. Please don’t be fooled by the proponents, and their deep pocket supporters, who use the media very effectively to put out their propaganda. Tell your family and friends not to sign the petition for this destructive Initiative!

We will be providing future updates and additional information. Thank You For Your Help!

~

June 2015 Update

On June 5, 2015, former San Jose mayor Chuck Reed and ex-San Diego councilmember Carl DeMaio along with 4 others submitted to the California Attorney General a state-wide initiative that would seriously undermine public pensions. They requested a title and summary be prepared by the Attorney General to allow them to start collecting petition signatures from the public to qualify it for the November 2016 general election. Chuck Reed and others had tried to undermine public pensions systems in California in 2014 through the initiative process, but the proponents cancelled that effort after the Attorney General wrote the title and summary that frankly described the proposal. The proponents sued the Attorney General over the title and summary language but the judge did not find any inaccuracy in what the Attorney General wrote.

The new initiative has gone through the 30 day public review period, and the fiscal impacts are being written jointly by the State Department of Finance and the Legislative Analyst, and the title and summary are being written by the Attorney General’s Office. The current Initiative #15-0033 has far reaching impacts and could effectively close all State and local public pensions systems to new employees if the voters for the more than 5,000 state entities (e.g. cities, counties, schools, state government, etc.) don’t specifically approve their continuation through individual ballot measures. Stay tuned for updates on this drastic effort, specifically targeting defined benefit retirement plans.

The SCREA Board of Directors decided not to appeal a Summary Judgment ruling regarding our lawsuit against the County to retain retiree medical subsidies. A Federal Judge ruled on September 30, 2013 that there was insufficient evidence that the County intended to provide retiree subsidies in perpetuity.

SCREA had provided the court with significant supporting documentation and many declarations by former County employees. What we were unable to provide to the court (and the primary reason that we did not appeal the judge’s decision) were Board of Supervisors resolutions or other written communications that clearly documented the County’s intent to provide retiree subsidies in perpetuity (forever). Employees and retirees had relied on verbal understandings, three decades of past practice, statements by County employees, and “trust”.

We trusted the County and the County let us down!

Our lawsuit wasn’t the first legal action related to the loss of retiree medical subsidies. Back in 2007, the County eliminated the retiree medical subsidies for employees who retired after June 1, 2007. But the County refused to bargain this issue with the unions. Some of the unions then filed charges of unfair labor practices with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). These unions won their case on June 30, 2009. The County was required to re-instate the retiree subsidies and pay interest (make whole anyone who was impacted by the unlawful change). The County did so, but only for those members of unions that had filed formal charges against the County. All of the management, administrative and other unrepresented employees, as well as all of the members of bargaining units that didn’t file formal charges against the County, got nothing. They received no reinstatement of the retiree subsidies. This action by the County sent a strong message to the unions, its workforce and to SCREA.

We then met with the Interim County Executive and he refused to allow discussion of this topic and threatened to end the meeting with SCREA representatives if we brought it up again. When the County subsequently terminated the retiree subsides, SCREA Board members met with our attorney and our attorney requested the opportunity to discuss these issues with County Counsel. We received no response. We then drafted a lawsuit related to our retiree subsidies and provided a copy of the lawsuit to County Counsel and asked him again for the opportunity to discuss the matter before we filed it with the court. Again we received no response. SCREA then filed the lawsuit. It is unfortunate that all opportunities to discuss this topic prior to court action were not accommodated.

It is important to note that in 2010, the Management employees felt strongly that it was necessary to unionize and voted overwhelmingly to become an exclusive bargaining unit. The following year, the Administrative employees also did the same. These previously unrepresented Management and Administrative employees are now in bargaining units like the other County unions and are now covered by formal labor contracts rather than just trusting the County.

SCREA Board Members have painfully learned in the past few years that long-term “past practice” and “trust” cannot be relied on. Important policy issues like retiree health and dental subsidies should be reduced to writing in understandable language by the County and distributed to all employees and retirees, and there should to be a formal process to address these kinds of issues. The County Management and Administrative employees now have that kind of formal process since they became exclusive bargaining units, but SCREA cannot formally bargain on behalf of County retirees.

In the past, we have achieved success by meeting with County officials and Members of the Board of Supervisors, and have presented at the Board of Supervisors meetings when retiree related topics were on the agenda. On more than one occasion, the Board of Supervisors even voted in favor of our position on retiree issues rather than approving the County Executive’s recommendations. But more recently, as illustrated above, discussions with County officials have become more difficult.

The loss of the retiree health subsidies doesn’t just affect current retirees, it also affects current employees (future retirees), many of whom were hoping we would prevail. In the end, I think employees, retirees and County all lost something important in the last few years….the element of ”trust”. I hope that in the future there will be opportunities to re-build the trust between the County and those who work, or have worked, for them. In the meantime, your SCREA Board will continue to represent all County retirees to the best of our abilities.

Other Related Court Decisions

SCREA wasn’t the only retiree organization to recently get disappointing news regarding legal decisions involving the loss of retiree medical benefits. The Retired Employee Association of Orange County, on February 13, 2014, lost their appeal on a case involving the elimination of “pooled health premiums”. After decades of past practice and much supporting evidence, the California Court of Appeals ruled against retirees who had filed suit against San Diego County after the County eliminated blended insurance premiums for retirees under 65 years old, an action that increased retirees’ medical premiums dramatically.

Legal issues in this lawsuit against Orange County had previously been to the California State Supreme Court in 2011 where a unanimous decision had been issued that found that “a county may be bound by an implied contract under California law if there is no legislative prohibition against such arrangements, such as a statue or ordinance”. Further, the State Supreme Court stated that “a contract is either express or implied”. In other words, a contract can be formed by either words or conduct. However, the recent legal rulings show that decades of “past practice” and other supporting evidence do not protect County retirees’ rights regarding the loss of their medical benefits.

Yet another appeal was lost involving Sonoma County retirees – a case similar to Orange County retirees.

Also, a lawsuit was filed and won in Court on behalf of a retired police officer who sued the City of San Diego because it placed a cap on the premiums it would pay on her retiree health benefits. While the retirees initially won their lawsuit, they recently lost on the City’s appeal to the California Court of Appeals. A press report in San Diego reads: “Potentially precedent setting ruling opens the door for governments statewide to slash worker benefits”.

Mission Statement

SCREA is established to promote the welfare of the retired employees of Sacramento County in all ways compatible with the public interest, and to assist employees reaching retirement to make the transition in the most effective way possible by:

Representing retired employees in discussions, hearings, and negotiations with County agencies and officials;

Joining and/or supporting other organizations formed for similar purposes;

Creating and fostering favorable public sentiment;

Supporting legislation deemed beneficial and resisting legislation deemed detrimental to the interests of its members or sound government;